How Well do Self-Regulation and Engagement Predict Learning outcomes? Exploring Online English Classes in an Iranian University

Nejati, R.

doi:10.22061/tej.2023.10069.2936

Document Type : Original Research Paper-English Issue

Author

R. Nejati

English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2023.10069.2936

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Recognizing the unique requirements of online education is crucial due to its wide spread use. Self-regulation in learning seems essential for this instructional approach, as students and instructors are physically separated. To effectively manage their time, establish goals, and sustain motivation, individuals must adopt practical strategies. Active engagement in the learning process is also vital, requiring students to actively participate, contribute, and engage with instructors and peers. Assessing students' self-regulation and engagement can help educational managers and professors supervise the educational process and implement necessary measures when student participation is lacking. The objective of this study was to investigate how self-regulated learning and engagement contribute to outcomes of leaning as measured in terms of reading comprehension skills of Iranian students in online classrooms.
Materials and Methods: The study investigated research questions using two questionnaires and a test, namely, the Online self-regulation questionnaire (OSQ), the Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE), and the reading part of the Test of English as a Foreign Language. The self-regulation questionnaire had three constructs with 10 items each, while the engagement questionnaire had four constructs with 19 items. These scales were translated into Persian and sent to 345 students. Out of the 287 returned questionnaires, 21 were excluded due to inattention. The remaining 266 responses, along with their test scores, were analyzed statistically. Both the questionnaires and the language test were administered via the LMS in 2022.
Findings: The data underwent a rigorous process of statistical analyses to evaluate reliability, construct validity, and the relationships between variables. These analyses aimed to ensure the accuracy and robustness of the findings. To assess reliability, Cronbach's Alpha coefficients were calculated for three key variables: Engagement, Self-regulation, and Reading. The obtained coefficients were .89, .94, and .86, respectively. These values indicate high levels of internal consistency within each variable, suggesting that the measurement instruments used to assess these constructs were reliable. Construct validity was also examined through Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values for Engagement, Self-regulation, and Reading. The reported RMSEA values were .08, .07, and .01, respectively. These values fall within an acceptable range, indicating that the measurement models adequately fit the observed data and supported the construct validity of the variables. All three variables (Engagement, Self-regulation, and Reading) exhibited statistically significant t-values, providing strong evidence that students' engagement, self-regulation, and reading ability were deemed satisfactory based on the collected data. The analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between regulatory engagement and reading comprehension. This finding suggests that higher levels of regulatory engagement are associated with better reading comprehension skills among students. Additionally, a regression analysis was conducted to explore the associations between specific factors and reading comprehension. The results indicated that both 'performance' and 'student-student interactions' had strong and positive associations with reading comprehension. The beta coefficients for these variables were 0.25 and 0.21, respectively. This implies that improvements in performance and increased student-student interactions are related to enhanced reading comprehension abilities.
Conclusions: The relationship between regulatory engagement and reading comprehension holds significant implications for educators and policymakers. Understanding this connection is essential to develop effective interventions and instructional approaches aimed at enhancing students' regulatory engagement abilities, ultimately leading to improved reading comprehension outcomes. However, it is important to acknowledge that the study conducted had certain limitations that restricted its scope and prevented a thorough examination of all potential factors influencing reading comprehension skills. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the topic, future research should explore additional variables beyond regulatory engagement. For instance, considering the influence of cultural background on reading comprehension can provide valuable insights into how diverse learners may approach and interpret texts differently. Similarly, investigating various teaching methods employed in different educational settings can shed light on the effectiveness of specific instructional approaches in promoting reading comprehension. Furthermore, individual cognitive factors such as working memory and attentional control warrant attention in future studies. These cognitive processes play integral roles in reading comprehension, and exploring their impact can help identify strategies to support students with specific cognitive profiles or challenges.

Keywords

Main Subjects

e-learning

COPYRIGHTS
© 2024 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

References

[1] Cho MH, Cho Y. Self-regulation in three types of online interaction: a scale development. Distance Education. 2017; 38(1):70–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1299563

[2] King RB. Sense of relatedness boosts engagement, achievement, and well-being: A latent growth model study. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2015; 42:26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.002

[3] Azevedo R, Moos DC, Greene JA, Winters FI, Cromley JG. Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development. 2007;56(1):45–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9067-0

[4] Kehrwald B. Understanding social presence in text‐based online learning environments. Distance Education. 2008;29(1):89-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910802004860

[5] Robinson CC, Hullinger H. New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business. 2008;84(2):101-9.

[6] Schunk, Dale H., and Ellen L. Usher, ' Social Cognitive Theory and Motivation', in Richard M. Ryan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, Oxford Library of Psychology 2012; [Available Online]. 2012),

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0002, accessed 21 July 2023.

[7] Usher EL, Schunk DH. Social cognitive theoretical perspective of self-regulation. In: Schunk DH. and Greene JA. (eds.) Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Routledge; 2017. Pp. 19-35. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-2

[8] Winne PH. Cognition and metacognition within self-regulated learning. In: Schunk DH and. Greene JA. (eds.) Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Routledge; 2017. Pp. 36-48.

https://doi.org/1010.4324/9781315697048.ch3

[9] Azevedo R, Johnson A, Chauncey A, Burkett C. Self-regulated learning with MetaTutor: Advancing the science of learning with metacognitive tools. In New Science of Learning: Cognition, Computers and Collaboration in Education. Springer New York; 2010. Pp. 225-47.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_11

[10] Azevedo R, Aleven V, Editors. International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies. Springer International Handbooks of Education. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2013.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_1

[11] Hadwin A, Järvelä S, Miller M. Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In: Schunk DH and Greene JA. (eds.) Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Routledge; 2017. Pp. 83-106).

[12] Reimann P, Bannert M. Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. In: Schunk DH and Greene JA (eds.) Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Routledge; 2017. Pp. 285–303.‌

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-19

[13] Tang M, Neber H. Motivation and self‐regulated science learning in high‐achieving students: differences related to nation, gender, and grade‐level. High Ability Studies. 2008;19(2):103–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130802503959

[14] Zhu C, Valcke M, Schellens T. A cross-cultural study of Chinese and Flemish university students: Do they differ in learning conceptions and approaches to learning? Learning and Individual Differences. 2008;18(1):120–7.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.07.004

[15] Ommundsen Y, Haugen R, Lund T. Academic self‐concept, implicit theories of ability, and self‐regulation strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2005;49(5):461-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383057838.

[16] Huang J, Prochner L. Chinese Parenting Styles and Children’s Self-Regulated Learning. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 2003;18(3):227–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540409595037

[17] King RB, Ganotice FA. Does family obligation matter for students’ motivation, engagement, and well-being? It depends on your self-construal. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015;86: 243–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.027

[18] Cengiz-Istanbullu, B. and Sakiz, G., 2022. Self-Regulated Learning Strategies Impact Fourth-Grade Students' Positive Outcomes in Science Class. Journal of Baltic Science Education; 21(2): 192-206. Doi:10.33225/jbse/22.21.192

[19] Davis SK, Hadwin AF. Exploring differences in psychological well-being and self-regulated learning in university student success. Frontline Learning Research. 2021;9(1):30–43. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr. v9i1.581

[20] Boekaerts M, Pintrich P, Zeidner M. Self-Regulation: An Introductory Review. In: Boekaerts M, Pintrich P, Zeidner M, editors. Handbook of Self-Regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.; 2000. p. 1–9.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50030-5

[21] Wandler J, Imbriale WJ. Promoting College Student Self-Regulation in Online Learning Environments. Online Learning. 2017;21(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i2.881

[22] Chiu YL, Liang JC, Tsai CC. Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and self-regulated learning in online academic information searching. Metacognition and Learning. 2013;8(3):235–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9103-x

[23] Chen CM, Huang SH. Web-based reading annotation system with an attention-based self-regulated learning mechanism for promoting reading performance. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2013;45(5):959–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12119

[24] Dunn KE, Rakes GC, Rakes TA. Influence of academic self-regulation, critical thinking, and age on online graduate students’ academic help-seeking. Distance Education. 2014;35(1):75–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.891426

[25] Cleary TJ. Emergence of Self-Regulated Learning Microanalysis. Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance [Available Online].

http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203839010.ch21

[26] Cleary TJ, Zimmerman BJ, Keating T. Training Physical Education Students to Self-Regulate During Basketball Free Throw Practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2006;77(2):251–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2006.10599358

[27] M K DiBenedetto and Zimmerman, BJ. Differences in self-regulatory processes among students studying science: a microanalytic investigation. International Journal of Educational & Psychological Assessment. 2010; 5(1): 2–24

[28] Zhang, Shilei, Rui Shi, Liping Yun, Xuefei Li, Yun Wang, Hongbin He, and Danmin Miao. Self-regulation and study-related health outcomes: A structural equation model of regulatory mode orientations, academic burnout and engagement among university students. Social Indicators Research. 2015; 123: 585-599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0742-3

[29] Bagozzi RP. The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social psychology quarterly. 1992; 1:178-204. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786945

[30] Cho MH, Shen D. Self-regulation in online learning. Distance education. 2013;34(3):290-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835770

[31] Li S, Chen G, Xing W, Zheng J, Xie C. Longitudinal clustering of students’ self-regulated learning behaviors in engineering design. Computers & Education. 2020; 153: 103899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103899 .

[32] Viberg O, Khalil M, Baars M. Self-regulated learning and learning analytics in online learning environments. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. 202; 13.

https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3375462.3375483 .

[33] Reddy LA, Cleary TJ, Alperin A, Verdesco A. A critical review of self-regulated learning interventions for children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools. 2018; 55(6):609–28.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22142

[34] Cleary TJ, Kitsantas A, Pape SL, Slemp J. Integration of socialization influences and the development of self-regulated learning (SRL) skills: A social-cognitive perspective. In: Alief GAD, McInerney D (ed.). Big theories revisited (2nd ed). Information Age Publishing; 2018. Pp. 269–94.

[35] Thomas, N, Rose, H. Do Language Learning Strategies Need to Be Self‐Directed? Disentangling Strategies from Self‐Regulated Learning. TESOL Quarterly. 2018;53(1):248–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.473

[36] Dornyei Z. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. New Jersey: Mahwah; 2005.

[37] Tseng WT, Dörnyei Z, Schmitt N. A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied linguistics. 2006;27(1):78-102.

https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami046

[38] Dent AL, Koenka AC. The Relation Between Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement Across Childhood and Adolescence: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review. 2015;28(3):425–74.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9320-8

[39] Weinstein CE, Acee TW, Jung J. Self-regulation and learning strategies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 2011; 126:45–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.443 .

[40] Cleary TJ, Slemp J, Reddy LA, Alperin A, Lui A, Austin A, Cedar T. Characteristics and uses of SRL microanalysis across diverse contexts, tasks, and populations: A systematic review. School Psychology Review. 2023;52(2):159-79. https://doi.org/10.180/2372966X.2020.1862627

[41] Cleary TJ, Zimmerman BJ. A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. In: Timothy J,.Cleary B, and Zimmerman J. (eds.) Handbook of research on student engagement. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2012. Pp. 237-257.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_11

[42] Pohl AJ. Strategies and Interventions for Promoting Cognitive Engagement. In: Reschly AL, Pohl AJ, Christenson SL, editors. Student Engagement. Cham.: Springer; 2020. p. 253–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37285-9_14

[43] Lewis AD, Huebner ES, Malone PS, Valois RF. Life satisfaction and student engagement in adolescents. J. Youth. Adolesc. 2011; 4: 249–262.